UNIVERSITY    OF   CALIFORNIA  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 

COLLEGE   OF   AGRICULTURE  benj.  ide  wheeler,  president 


BERKELEY 


THOMAS    FORSYTH    HUNT,   Dean  and  Director 

H.    E.   VAN    NORMAN.   Vice-Director    and    Dean 

University    Farm    School 


CIRCULAR  No.  141 

October,  1915 

STANDARD    INSECTICIDES    AND    FUNGICIDES 

versus 

SECRET    PREPARATIONS 

By  GEO.  P.  GEAY 


No  small  part  of  the  correspondence  of  the  Insecticide  and  Fungi- 
cide Laborator}^  of  the  University  of  California  is  in  answer  to 
questions  concerning  the  composition  or  value  of  various  proprietary 
remedies  which  are  being  offered  for  sale  for  the  control  or  eradication 
of  insects  or  fungi.  The  following  is  an  abstract  from  a  letter  which 
is  more  or  less  typical  of  many  which  have  been  received : 

"Under  separate  cover  I  am  sending  you  a  small  sample  of  a  preparation 
which  is  being  used  and  offered  for  sale  in  this  district  as  a  secret  cure  for  .  .  . 
The  man  who  is  introducing  this  medicine  claims  great  and  mysterious  things 
for  it  and  is  charging  an  extremely  exorbitant  price  for  the  same.  In  one 
orchard,  for  instance,  he  treated  something  like  300  trees  and  claimed  that 
his  medicine  cost  $285.  I  desire  very  much  to  have  an  analysis  of  this 
material.  I  have  assumed  that  it  is  merely  creosote  or  some  similar  substance 
with  .  .  .  coloring  matter  in  it.  The  man  claims,  however,  to  have  some  other 
mysterious  substance  mixed  with  it. ' ' 

COMMON    EEMEDIES    IN    DISGUISE    MAY    CONSTITUTE 
ALLEGED    DISCOVERIES 

Very  often  the  promoters  of  "secret"  remedies  either  claim  or 
imply  certain  mysterious  properties  for  their  compounds  and  "new 
discoveries"  are  frequently  mentioned.  The  statement  is  commonly 
found  that  "years  of  study  have  been  spent  in  the  perfection"  of  such 
preparations.  During  the  four  years'  operation  of  the  California 
Insecticide  Law,  scores  of  proprietary  insecticides  and  fungicides 
have  been  analyzed.  In  no  case  could  any  mysterious  or  costly  sub- 
stance be  found  by  the  most  searching  examination,  nor  could  any 
substance  be  detected  which  had  not  been  made  public  as  a  remedy 
for  insects  or  fungi.  Based  upon  this  experience,  a  study  of  the  pub- 
lished writings  on  insecticides  and  fungicides,  and  of  the  formulas 
on  file  in  the  office,  it  is  concluded  that  the  most  noteworthy  "dis- 
coveries" and  "secrets"  in  this  class  of  goods  consist  not  in  the 
discovery  of  the  insecticide  or  fungicide  itself  but  the  discovery  and 
keeping  secret  of  efficient  and  cheap  coloring  matters  or  powerful  and 
pleasant  smelling  perfumes  to  mask  the  presence  of  some  very  com- 
mon remedy.     The  mysterious  and  wonderful  properties  ascribed  to 


them  are  too  often  found  on  the  outside  of  the  package  composed  of 
printer's  ink,  rather  than  upon  the  inside  of  the  package.  Among 
illustrations  of  this  kind  may  be  mentioned  the  coloring  of  borax  with 
iron  rust,  the  sweetening  of  the  odor  of  kerosene  with  oil  of  citronella, 
the  coloring  of  carbon  bisulphide  with  iodine  and  masking  its  tell-tale 
odor  with  oil  of  mirbane. 

"TREEVAX"    ANOTHER    GOOD    ILLUSTRATION 

The  most  recent  instance  of  this  kind  that  has  come  to  the  attention 
of  the  laboratory  is  a  red  powder  which  is  being  offered  for  sale  in 
the  state  under  the  name  of  "Treevax,"  probably  intended  to  catch 
the  fancy  of  the  public  under  the  guise  of  a  supposed  tree  vaccine. 
It  is  said  to  be  manufactured  by  the  Treevax  Chemical  Company  of 
Hicksville,  Ohio.  Special  mention  is  made  of  this  compound  for  the 
reason  that  it  is  believed  that  the  method  of  application  is  such  as 
to  place  in  jeopardy  the  life  of  any  tree  to  which  it  may  be  applied. 

A  sample  of  "Treevax"  has  been  analyzed  by  the  laboratory  and 
found  to  be  of  approximately  the  following    composition : 

Potassium  nitrate  (saltpeter)   2  parts 

Sulphur  5  parts 

Iron  compounds  (principally  oxides  and  carbonates)  1  part 

According  to  the  best  information  available,  such  a  mixture  is  practically 
valueless  as  an  insecticide  or  fungicide  when  placed  in  a  hole  bored  into  the 
trunk  of  a  tree,  as  directed  in  the  circulars.  The  retail  price  of  the  most 
expensive  ingredient  (saltpeter)  is  only  about  twenty-five  cents  per  pound, 
even  at  ' '  war  prices. ' '     The  price  of  ' '  Treevax  "  is  $2  per  pound. 

Very  alluring  and  extravagant  claims  are  made  in  the  circulars  accompany- 
ing the  package.  The  following  are  some  of  the  statements  made:  "Treevax 
kills  San  Jose  Scale,  Caterpillars,  Lice,  Borers  and  many  insects  that  feed 
upon  leaf,  branch,  roots,  or  fruit,  without  injury  to  either.  Blight — the  enemy 
of   the   pear   tree   is    conquered   by   Treevax. ' ' 

The  above  claims  appear  to  be  based  largely  upon  the  experience  of  a 
certain  lady  of  Hicksville,  Ohio,  who  testifies  that  she  had  a  very  valuable 
pear  tree  on  her  lot  which  was  badly  affected  with  the  blight  and  that  after 
treatment  with  "Treevax,"  "The  tree  soon  took  on  new  life  and  a  healthier 
tree  cannot  be  found  than  my  pear  tree,  and  it  was  just  loaded  with  fruit." 
According  to  the  circular,  a  quantity  of  the  pear  juice  was  extracted  from 
the  pears  grown  by  the  owner  of  this  valuable  tree  and  subjected  to  bacterio- 
logical and  chemical  analysis  and  found  free  from  any  injurious  impurities. 
Pictures  are  also  shown  of  a  certain  Ohio  orchard  (consisting  of  sixteen  trees) 
which  had  been  treated  with  "Treevax"  in  comparison  with  an  orchard  which 
had  not  been  so  treated. 

An  effort  is  made  in  the  advertising  matter  accompanying  the  package  to 
create  the  impression  that  the  compound  and  method  of  treatment  are  based 
upon  scientific  principles.  The  statement  is  also  made  that  "years  have  been 
spent  in  perfecting  the  compound."  The  directions  for  use  and  the  testimonials 
are  mosi  unscientific,  however.  It  is  presumed  that  the  best  of  the  testi- 
monials would  be  selected  for  the  advertising  matter,  but  those  given  are 
not    calculated    to    greatly   impress    the    scientist.      The    lady's    pear    tree    and 


the  sixteen-tree  orchard  which  were  rescued  from  an  untimely  death  do  not 
constitute  sufficient  evidence  to  warrant  the  statement  appearing  on  the  circular 
that  ' '  The  Treevax  treatment  is  based  on  the  same  scientific  facts  as  are  now 
commonly  accepted  by  the  medical  profession  and  it  is  creating  the  same 
revolution  in  the  treatment  of  diseases  of  plant  life  that  has  already  taken 
place  in  the  treatment  of  human  ills."  The  promoters  can  not  be  very 
familiar  with  the  habits  of  scale  insects,  for  it  is  directed  that  "All  dead 
limbs  should  be  trimmed  or  cut  off  tree.  This  is  very  essential  for  a  dead 
limb  has  no  sap  and  if  left  on  scale  or  other  pests  seek  refuge  on  it,  hence 
full  benefit  of  the  treatment  is  not  realized."  This  direction  is  printed  in 
large  type.  The  removal  of  dead  limbs  might  be  a  benefit  to  a  tree  affected 
with  blight,  but  one  does  not  need  to  be  a  trained  entomologist  to  smile  at 
the  thought  of  scale  or  other  pests  seeking  refuge  on  the  dead  limbs  of  a 
tree  and  there  starving  to  death,  of  course,  for  the  want  of  sap  or  other 
nourishment. 

The  most  insidious  feature  of  the  application  of  the  material  is  believed 
to  be  the  effect  of  the  "plugging"  of  trees  by  inexperienced  hands.  The 
directions  for  use  are  to  bore  a  hole  in  the  tree,  fill  with  the  powder,  drive 
in  a  hardwood  plug  and  seal  over  with  grafting  wax.  This  question  has  been 
discussed  in  the  publications  of  several  experiment  stations  and  in  other 
literature.  A  summary  of  some  of  the  experiments  and  conclusions  has  been 
made  in  the  California  Cultivator  of  April  22,  1915,  and  orchardists  are  advised 
of  the  futility  and  probable  harmfulness  of  applying  the  known  remedies  in 
the  manner  under  discussion. 

Present  or  future  investigations  may  disclose  an  effective  and  safe  way 
to  control  insects  and  fungi  by  means  of  remedies  carried  by  the  sap  of 
trees.  At  present,  however,  there  is  no  satisfactorily  demonstrated  method 
of  this  kind  which  may  be  used  by  unskilled  hands,  nor  is  it  at  all  certain 
that  a  remedy  can  be  thus  applied,  even  by  the  expert,  in  sufficient  strength 
to  destroy  insects  or  fungi  without  injury  to  the  tree. 

It  does  seem  certain,  however,  that  a  simple  mixture  of  saltpeter, 
sulphur,  and  insoluble  iron,  selling  at  $2  a  pound  under  the  name  of 
" Treevax"  is  a  rank  fraud  and  can  have  no  legitimate  place  among 
the  remedies  in  use  by  the  fruitgrowers  of  California.  The  most 
serious  menace  of  the  compound  is  that  some  one  may  be  misled  by 
the  confident  assurance  of  the  promoters  and  bore  his  trees  full  of 
holes,  be  further  misled  by  the  stimulating  effect  on  the  foliage  of 
the  soluble  nitrate,  and  not  realize  his  mistake  until  his  trees  begin 
to  suffer  from  the  effects  of  wood  rot  many  months  later. 


PEOPEIETAKY    REMEDIES    NOT    ALL    FRAUDULENT 

It  is  not  intended  by  the  above  discussion  to  imply  that  all  pro- 
prietary preparations  are  worthless,  for  many  have  been  examined 
which  are  valuable  and  reliable  remedies,  but  are  on  the  market  under 
names  which  do  not  convey  any  idea  of  their  composition.  Some  of 
them  are  being  sold  at  their  true  commercial  value,  the  name  being 
used  only  as  an  identification  mark  to  designate  certain  characteristics 
or  quality  or  worth  of  the  particular  preparation.  There  can  be  no 
objection  made  to  the  use  of  a  trade  name  or  brand  or  trade  mark 


in  connection  with  a  standard  material  and,  in  fact,  it  is  often  quite 
desirable.  Furthermore,  if  an  actual  discovery  of  some  new  insecticide 
or  fungicide  has  been  made,  there  can  be  no  objection  to  the  use  of 
a  coined  name  to  designate  the  product.  If  the  composition  of  the 
material  is  disclosed  (but  not  necessarily  the  mode  of  manufacturing 
or  compounding),  the  product  may  be  properly  recognized  as  a 
standard  remedy,  if  tests  show  it  to  be  worthy. 

DISADVANTAGES   IN   USING   PROPRIETARY   REMEDIES 

The  fact  that  an  insecticide  or  fungicide  of  secret  composition  is 
sold  under  a  trade  name  does  not  necessarily  condemn  the  preparation, 
but  it  does  place  it  under  suspicion,  for  the  following  reasons : 

1.  Under  the  existing  insecticide  laws,  it  is  possible  to  concoct 
any  form  of  mixture  which  is  not  absolutely  injurious  and  impose 
it  upon  the  consuming  public. 

2.  No  standard  can  be  made  for  proprietary  preparations.  Their 
composition  is  entirely  according  to  the  desire  of  the  manufacturer 
and  may  be  changed  at  will. 

3.  Copyrighted  names  are  often  taken  advantage  of  to  obtain  a 
higher  price  for  a  common  remedy  than  could  be  obtained  by  the  use 
of  the  real  name  of  the  material. 

4.  Certain  mysterious  and  wonderful  properties  may  be  claimed 
or  implied  for  a  compound  sold  under  a  coined  name,  and  obtain 
greater  credence  than  if  the  composition  were  known. 

5.  The  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  and  the  Agricult- 
ural Experiment  Stations  of  the  several  states  are  spending  thousands 
of  dollars  each  year  in  making  a  study  of  the  standard  insecticides 
and  fungicides.  Recommendations  are  made  for  their  use  based  upon 
careful  experiments,  as  to  what  materials  are  best  adapted  to  meet 
the  different  requirements,  what  materials  may  be  safely  mixed,  and 
giving  precautions  to  be  observed  in  their  use.  To  the  consumer  who 
is  using  the  standard  remedies,  all  this  information  is  available.  Such, 
however,  is  not  the  case  for  the  one  who  is  using  a  remedy  sold  under 
a  trade  name  which  conveys  no  idea  of  its  composition. 

If  the  prospective  user  appeals  to  his  County  Commissioner  of 
Horticulture  for  advice  about  the  use  of  a  proprietary  remedy  or  goes 
to  the  University  Experiment  Station  for  help,  the  available  informa- 
tion must  of  necessity  be  limited,  for  it  would  be  an  absolute  impos- 
sibility to  test  out  individually  the  thousands  of  materials  offered  for 
sale  under  trade  names.  Furthermore,  if  this  could  be  done,  there 
would  be  no  assurance  that  the  manufacturer  would  not  change  the 
composition  of  his  product  whenever  he  saw  fit,  and  continue  selling 
the  new  preparation  under  the  old  name.  A  secret  remedy  is  com- 
pounded in  accordance  with  no  standard  except  the  desire  of  the 
manufacturer. 

Consumers  are  therefore  urged  to  greatly  discount  the  marvelous 
properties  and  virtues  so  often  ascribed  to  secret  remedies,  and  to 
make  use  of  the  standard  materials  of  more  modest,  but  usually  more 
truthful,  claims. 


